Shri Chikkaramaiah Kenchappa vs The Divisional Controller KSRTC, Bangalore Central Division, K.H. Road, Shanthinagar, Bangalore-560009

Ram Mohan Reddy

Petitioner when appointed as a casual worker in the respondent-Public Road Transport Corporation with effect from 25.8.2004 pursuant to the direction of the Apex Court to treat him as a casual labor, a position, which he held prior to removal from service, alleging entitlement to regularisation, had his cause espoused through a Trade Union, which initiating conciliation proceeding under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, ending in a failure report, whence the State Government by order dated 20.12.2007 referred the industrial dispute to the Industrial Tribunal, for adjudication, registered as I.D.No. 280/2007. The point of dispute referred for adjudication was whether the Trade Union was justified in making a demand for regularisation of the petitioner''s service in the respondent-Road Transport Corporation. Petitioner having filed claim statement, was resisted by filing counter statement of the respondent-Road Transport Corporation. The Industrial Tribunal having regard to the admitted facts and keeping in mind the authoritative pronouncement of the constitution bench of the Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Umadevi and Others, and observations in State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Ganapathi Chaya Nayak and Others, , concluded that the petitioner''s claim for regularisation was not maintainable and accordingly, by the award dated 26.8.2011, rejected the reference. Hence, this petition.

The Apex Court in State of Rajasthan and Others Vs. Daya Lal and Others, . summarized the well settled principles relating to regularisation and pay in parity thus :

The following are well-settled principles relating to regularisation and parity in pay:

(i) The High Courts, in exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution will not issue directions for regularisation, absorption or permanent continuance, unless the employees claiming regularisation had been appointed in pursuance of a regular recruitment in accordance with relevant rules in an open competitive process, against sanctioned vacant posts. The equality clause contained in Articles 14 and 16 should be scrupulously followed and Courts should not issue a direction for regularisation of services of an employee which would be violative of the constitutional scheme. While something that, is irregular for want of compliance with one of the elements in the process of selection which does not go to the root of the process, can be regularised, back door entries, appointments contrary to the constitutional scheme and/or appointment of ineligible candidates cannot be regularised.

(ii) Mere continuation of service by a temporary or ad hoc or daily-wage employee, under cover of some interim orders of the court, would not confer upon him any right to be absorbed into service, as such service would be "litigious employment". Even temporary, ad hoc or daily-wage service for a long number of years, let alone service for one or two years, will not entitle such employee to claim regularisation, if he is not working against a sanctioned post. Sympathy and sentiment cannot be grounds for passing any order of regularisation in the absence of a legal right.

(iii) Even where a scheme is formulated for regularisation with a cut-off date (that is a scheme providing that persons who had put in a specified number of years of service and continuing in employment as on the cut-off date), it is not possible to others who were appointed subsequent to the cut-off date, to claim or contend that, the scheme should be applied to them by extending the cut-off date or seek a direction for framing of fresh schemes providing for successive cutoff dates.

(iv) Part-time employees are not entitled to seek regularisation as they are not working against any sanctioned posts. There cannot be a direction for absorption, regularisation or permanent continuance of part-time temporary employees.

(v) Part-time temporary employees in a government run institution cannot, claim parity in salary with regular employees of the Government on the principle of equal pay for equal work. Nor can employees in private employment, even if serving full time, seek parity in salary with government employees. The right to claim a particular salary against the State must arise under a contract or under a statute.

In Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. Vartak Labour Union, at paragraphs 17 & 20 following the earlier reported opinions and also that of the Constitution Bench in UMA DEVIs case opined that the respondent union''s claim for regularisation of its members merely because they have been working for the BRO for a considerable time cannot be granted in the light of the decision of the Court: wherein it is consistently held that casual employment terminates when the same is discontinued, and merely because a temporary or a casual worker is engaged beyond the period of his employment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent, if the original appointment was not in terms of the process envisaged by the relevant rules.

In Union of India (UOI) and Another Vs. Arulmozhi Iniarasu and Others, at paragraphs 19 to 25 the Apex Court observed that the doctrine of legitimate expectation and its impact in administrative law had been considered by She Court in a catena of decisions while making reference to Council of Civil Services Unions vs. Minister for Civil Services 1985 AC 374 as also in Sethi Auto Service Station and Another Vs. Delhi Development Authority and Others, , to conclude that the said doctrine is not attracted.

Undoubtedly, the words "regular" and regularisation" have been interpreted - by the constitution bench of the Apex Court in Umadevi''s case and applying the same to the facts of this case, admittedly petitioner when not appointed in a regular recruitment process under the KSRTC Servants Cadre and Recruitment Regulations, no exception can be taken to the reasons, findings and conclusions arrived at by the Industrial Tribunal in the award impugned, calling for interference.

Petition, devoid of merit, is rejected.